Hi All! My apologies for disappearing. I hope and pray for the Lord's blessings on you all. JES sent me an email reminder that the site is still up and running and has a good question recently posted. Those of you that know my position on the science of evolution may be a little surprised by my position on abiogenesis. Personally, I believe that the origins of the first cells were entirely a product of God's direct action. Abiogenesis is not a topic I've done a tremendous amount of research on, but to my knowledge, progress since Miller and Urey (in the 50s) has been quite disappointing. Jack Szostak (Nobel Prize for his work on telomeres) has been working on the generation of self-replicating RNAs for about a decade, with precious little to show for his efforts. I'm sure there are others also attempting to reproduce the earliest macromolecules and cells, but I am unaware of anything promising from this research. The incredible complexity of even the simplest of cells is absolutely staggering, and I cannot imagine the level of organization occurring on its own. To me, once living cells are present with all of the necessary biochemicals, evolution to complex organisms composed of trillions of cells is much easier than the original problem of the first cell. It is possible that a major breakthrough will be made at some point in the future, but based on what I've seen, direct divine action is a more plausible explanation for the first forms of life.

Amen, brother! He is risen, indeed! I haven't read Meyer's book, but I've read some of his other writings. The reason why I'm not particularly impressed with his arguments (or those of other ID proponents) is that they really target atheistic evolution, which I don't accept at all. Arguments about the information content of the cell and the highly improbable development of random changes are frankly ineffective if we assume that there is a Creator behind everything that we see. I don't know anyone that has been led to atheism by accepting evolution, I can only talk about what I know. To me, the concept of creation through such intricate and complex processes only deepens my appreciation for the wisdom, knowledge, and power of God. I have been teaching college students for nearly 20 years and have not had a single student express that my views on God and evolution made them question anything in their Christianity. I have however, heard from a dozen students or more that have expressed their appreciation for my explanations and insights.

In this case, inferring that the universe is between 13-14 billions of years old, or using spiral galaxies to suggest the universe is only hundreds of millions of years old would pose the same challenge to the 6,000 year old universe.

If spiral galaxies did happen to show (which I'm not conceding) that they were only hundreds of millions of years old, that would be just as much of a problem as a 14 billion year old universe for the position of a 6,000 year old universe. Either way, scientific evidence would suggest a MUCH older universe than a literalistic interpretation of Genesis 1 would allow.

Evolutionary biology is not my area of expertise, but I can confidently say that I am not on a slippery slope at all. The more I understand about the molecular machinery of the cell (which is my area of expertise), the more I can see how the hypotheses that make up the evolutionary theory are consistent with observations. And I can truly say my appreciation for these discoveries has not changed my faith in the slightest, only made me appreciate even more the simultaneous overwhelming power and deep subtlety of the creative work of our Lord.

Agreed, the most-widely accepted view was a literalistic interpretation of the Genesis account. I can see how this would be problematic when talking about “historical” when the views differ from what has been historically believed. It is probably an issue for a different thread, but I would like to discuss the interpretation of evidence that you believe supports a young earth, but is discredited by scientists. P. S. I would sure love to be in Bermuda, but alas, I’m just mired in a busy semester :-P

Hello All, I've spent a considerable amount of time on the BioLogos forum, although my activity has a flagged a bit lately. The time I've spent there has allowed me to get a feel for the forum-goers, but there isn't a great deal of involvement with the BioLogos leadership there. My point being that I think SMS has a good point with his post and I really don't have a good explanation for the curious language. It seems they are making a point to emphasize the belief in Biblical inspiration and authority, but calling their beliefs (or our beliefs, I should confess) historical may be stretching it a bit. It is true that widespread belief in an old earth is relatively new, but why would Augustine write "The literal meaning of Genesis" if it was unanimously accepted that a literalistic interpretation was the only possible interpretation? I'd like to also point out that at one point in history, it was believed that the earth was the center of the solar system (and the universe) and that all else moved around it, and the earth was flat and the sky was supported by pillars. Scientific discoveries have forced changes in how certain Biblical passages are interpreted before. I suspect Jacob is reading much more into the sentence than what is intended. If anyone happened to follow the link at the bottom of the page to "About Us", you probably noticed that this tops the list of "What We Believe": "We believe the Bible is the inspired and authoritative word of God. By the Holy Spirit it is the “living and active” means through which God speaks to the church today, bearing witness to God’s Son, Jesus, as the divine Logos, or Word of God." Again, this is at the top of the list. If the order of mention is actually critical, then it should also be meaningful that this tops their list. Regarding evolution, there are questions that remain to be answered, and the challenges trying to unravel what may have happened far in the past are considerable. However, that does not mean that the entire theory of evolution is inconclusive. It is far from that. There are lines of evidence in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, genetics, and ecology that all support the theory. One passage of Augustine's "The literal meaning of Genesis" has been translated like this; " Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he hold to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion. [1 Timothy 1.7] "

The latter portion of Genesis 4 suggests that other groups of people were on the earth at the time of Cain’s exile. Cain’s move to the land of Nod sounds as though others had already established territory there. Additionally, the mark of Cain that protected him may not have been needed to protect him from his family, but may be needed to protect him from other people. Cain was among enough people to build a city, also suggesting a significant population outside of Adam and Eve’s family. I wouldn’t call this “air tight” evidence, but it does seem likely to me.

Personally, I lean strongly toward Adam and Eve as historical figures, rather than figurative archetypes, but not as the only humans on the planet at the time. I think of their first sin as something of a rapid contagion. Once the "floodgates" of sin were opened by Adam and Eve, the sin nature and the influences of sin spread throughout humanity, with an effect very similar to what would happen if Adam and Eve were both spiritual and physical parents of all humanity. But as Nate has said, we can still unite regarding the ubiquitous need for the saving grace of Jesus Christ. Tangentially related -- I had a bit of a discussion (some would call it an argument :-P) at another site with an individual that acknowledged the sin of Eve, but claimed it didn't "count" as sin until after Adam sinned, since the New Testament refers to the sin of Adam. I believe that Adam and Eve were co-responsible for the entry of sin. All of your thoughts are appreciated.

I would like to be able to say that regardless of what we believe about the development of life (or the lack thereof), we believe in the risen Jesus Christ that loved us so much that He became incarnate and died for us. I believe there is enough evidence of His life and resurrection be compelling, and even convincing. I don’t believe we all must agree on what I feel are superfluous questions in order to speak the truth of Jesus to others.

I'm clearly going to carry some bias into this discussion, so I think it it worth admitting that when most people hear "creationist", what comes to mind is specifically a young earth creationist. But must it and should it be this way? I contend that it is much more important to believe in the almighty Creator, than to believe in the specific details of His creative work. Mr. Hodge believes that the person in his illustration that refers to himself as an "evolutionary creationist" is wrangling about words, but perhaps Mr. Hodge should extend the benefit of the doubt and consider why someone would want to identify as such. Mr. Hodge continues to criticize Dr. Francis Collins for identifying as an evolutionary creationist, and implies that it is a less than honest epithet. However, after reading Collins' The Language of God, and hearing him speak at a BioLogos convention this past Spring, I feel strongly that he uses the term for the same reason I do - he believes in God as the Creator and Sustainer of all things, but also believes that evolution is the tool that He used to bring about life as we see it now. Collins uses Creationist as a noun because that's what he feels is most important, not because he is trying to dupe anyone. Hodge's treatment of Collins is blatantly unfair, but doesn't stop there. His skepticism of Collins' Christianity is evident throughout the article, but one section really stood out to me. He refers to Bill Nye as "an atheist who believes in molecules-to-man evolution" and Ken Ham as "a Bible-believing Christian", but has these words for Collins, "a well-known scientist who professes to be a Christian", as if his acceptance of evolution somehow places Collins' acceptance of the gift of Jesus Christ as somewhat dubious. Additionally, I believe Hodges is flat-out wrong when trying to decide if Francis Collins is more like Bill Nye or Ken Ham. Francis Collins is a new creation, bought with the blood of Jesus Christ and a joint heir with Him, just like Ken Ham, and VERY much different from Bill Nye. Hodges also wonders if, since Ken Ham does believe in some biological change over time, BioLogos would be content if Ken Ham also called himself an evolutionary creationist. I understand his point, but it is something of a ridiculous argument since Ham has zero desire to do so. Since Collins wants to be known as an evolutionary creationist, maybe it is worth considering why. Before I get snarky toward Hodges, let me just say this -- the reason I participate in on-line discussions about science and Christian faith is because I have a dream of a day when young-earth creationists and evolutionary creationists accept one another. I hope to see the day when young-earth creationists will not view a belief in evolution and be suspicious of a true conversion experience, and evolutionary creationists will not view a belief in young-earth creation as intellectually bankrupt. This has not been my experience her at all, but believe me, I have considerable experience struggling against these trends at other sites. God bless!

I agree with you on this, too, Kirk. As with so many other things, start with Jesus Christ. It is pretty much only fringe conspiracy theorists that claim He never existed. If we move on to His resurrection and the fact that His followers stuck to their account despite threats of violence and death, with no apparent physical benefit, it is possible to give atheists at least something to think about. I have never experienced anyone that did an instantaneous turnabout because of this argument, but sometimes all we can do is sow seeds.

I agree with you about the wonders of life and the universe pointing to something (and more importantly, Someone!) beyond the physical. What I have done is explained why using statistical improbabilities is less than convincing proof of God’s involvement. It is rather difficult to use some form of naturalism (like statistics) to convince an atheistic naturalist. Dr. Axe gears his presentations to the Christian lay audience to support what they already believe. There is nothing wrong with that approach, it simply has limited application.

If we were to look at the issue from an atheistic evolution standpoint, the biggest problem with probability arguments is the assumption that what we see on the planet today could have occurred in only one possible way. Atheistic evolutionists would argue for a near-infinite number of possible outcomes, this is just the one that happened -- the same as my classroom birthday analogy. Of course the analogy is over-simplified, but imagine trying to argue "These can't possibly be all of your birthdays!! The odds are just too small!" On the other hand, evolutionary creation doesn't involved a myriad of possibilities, but one God responsible for each intricate detail of how everything unfolded. If God is the author (and I believe He is) of everything that was, is, and will be, then there is nothing that He cannot use for His purposes. No bang too big and no atomic interaction too small.

Hi Kirk, thanks for your patience with the Doug Axe and probability argument. Honestly, this was not a topic in his talks and in our correspondence. I have heard other arguments based on probability, though, and it may be something similar. Imagine if I go in to my class at the beginning of the Spring semester and I ask for each of their birthdays. Student 1 has a birthday that is a 1 in 365 chance, so I go on to student 2, 3, and all the way up to 35. I could calculate that the probability of my students having all their respective birthdays is 1/365 raised to the 35th power. It would be a near-impossibility mathematically, but there it is. Mathematical odds aren't a very good argument against current phenomena that have unfolded throughout history, regardless of how long that history is. It was Axe's scientific pursuits and explanations to a lay audience that I found flawed at best, and misleading at worst. And let's just say the attitude of respect that I have appreciated with you guys (even though you frequently disagree with me) was not present at all in Dr. Axe's presentations. One other small point -- my perception of God's creation is not random at all, in contrast to an atheistic evolution perception. Denis Lamoureux had an analogy I really liked: "Imagine that God’s creative action in the origin of the world to be like the stroke of a cue stick in a game of billiards. Divide and label the balls into three groups using the words “heavens,” “earth,” and “living organisms,” and let the 8-ball represent humanity. The young earth creationist depicts the Creator making single shot after single shot with no miscues until all the balls are off the table. No doubt about it, that is remarkable. A progressive creationist sees the opening stroke that breaks the rack of balls as the Big Bang, from which the inanimate universe evolves by natural processes. All of the billiard balls labelled heavens and earth are sunk by this initial shot. Then God sinks the balls that signify living organisms and humans individually. That is even more impressive. Evolutionary creationists assert that the God-of-the-individual-shots, like the God-of-the-gaps who intervenes intermittently in creating the world, fails to reveal fully the power and foresight of the Designer. According to this Christian view of evolution, the breaking stroke is so finely tuned and incredibly precise that not only are all the balls sunk, but they drop in order. It begins with those labelled heavens, then earth, followed by living organisms, and finally the 8-ball—the most important ball in billiards—representing humans. And to complete the analogy, the Lord pulls this last ball out of the pocket and holds it in His hands to depict His personal involvement with men and women."

If a helper was not found, that suggests that there was a search for a helper. Where else would a search be conducted? I really should have gone back to verse 18 of chapter 2. 18 The Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.” 19 Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. 20 So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds in the sky and all the wild animals. But for Adam[f] no suitable helper was found. 21 So the Lord God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man’s ribs[g] and then closed up the place with flesh. 22 Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib[h] he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man. The implications sound much more allegorical than literal.

It's from Genesis chapter 2: 19 Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. 20 So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds in the sky and all the wild animals. But for Adam[f] no suitable helper was found. 21 So the Lord God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man’s ribs[g] and then closed up the place with flesh.

I’m not a Hebrew or Biblical scholar, so I can’t provide an argument from grammar. But I find it plausible to take an allegorical interpretation from the content. A figure named “Man” has part of his body removed to make a helper named “Living” after a suitable helper is not found among the animals. God places them in an earthly paradise with the source of all wrong in the universe within easy grasp in the form of a fruit. The woman carries on a conversation with a legged serpent as though speaking with animals is a common occurrence. The legged serpent is complicit with Satan in the downfall of humanity because it is cursed with the loss of limbs and with enmity with humans. To a non-scholar, this sounds much more like allegory than literal history. Of course, people can use words differently, but by strict definition, evolution is a theory regarding biological phenomena, whereas abiogenesis refers to the origin of living things.

Kirk, like I mentioned, the Bible is really the only thing that gives me serious pause about the role of evolution in natural history. The argument of "kinds" is compelling, but in an allegorical interpretation, does not represent a litmus test for the veracity of the rest of the Bible. I completely reject the idea that an allegorical interpretation renders the rest of the Bible useless. I believe the creation account of Genesis is intended to establish that God is both Creator and Sustainer of all -- from subatomic particles to supernovas. The message continues to show the special nature of humanity, our ability to commune with Him and the consequences of when we choose our way over His. I do not believe the intent is to present a scientific treatise to our origins.

JES, Sorry, I forgot to post some articles. Here is one with some research done in yeast: http://www.genetics.org/content/179/1/487 A lot of work has been done in Drosophila. I'll just add one article here. http://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1003860 And one other interesting article with some comparative genomics from humans, chimps, macaques, and mice: http://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1005721